Darwinism

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

First of all, many people are bound believing faith means faith in a greater power IE a god, not in this school of thought.

Darwinism is centered around faith in the theory of evolution, that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

Thoughts?

Hardly anyone is a "Darwinist", trying to accuse someone of being one just makes you look silly.

And one does not have faith in evolution, it is a fact, verifiably so.

HunterTheGypsyBard:
First of all, many people are bound believing faith means faith in a greater power IE a god, not in this school of thought.

No, faith merely means belief without evidence.

HunterTheGypsyBard:

Darwinism is centered around faith in the theory of evolution, that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Wrong. There is no faith involved, as there is so, so much evidence.

HunterTheGypsyBard:

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

That right there is a truth fact.

LoFr3Eq:
Hardly anyone is a "Darwinist", trying to accuse someone of being one just makes you look silly.

And one does not have faith in evolution, it is a fact, verifiably so.

Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

You might want to go home and rethink your life OP. <Joking.

Your knowledge of epistemics is bad, and you should feel bad. <Not Joking.

Evolution is accepted, because it can be known to degrees of certainty. For instance, we can observe it take place, we can trace our own ancestry, and we can even observe selective processes. That's completely different from religious faith, and if you were interested in intellectual honesty, you wouldn't make the comparison.

Indeed, it's a comparison which does a disservice to both religious people, and the scientific community.

It shows an ignorance and disrespect to science, ignoring truth, naturalism, and the scientific method, and insults the religious tradition by devaluing faith.

Especially in the Christian tradition, faith is considered something to be valued. It's said that a person of faith can do all things through Christ, that faith is required to pass into heaven, and the like.

Using a dishonest strawman to conflate the two doesn't say much about the rigorousness of your position.

Glasgow:

Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

Its true, but i would call the falling pencil the "Fact" of gravity. Gravity happens. Thats a fact. WHY gravity happens and an explanation of HOW gravity happens is the theory. The fact is the known phenomenon, a data point as you said. This is the pencil falling. This is species becoming other species. Fossils show that species turn into different species. Data point. WHY do they do this?

The theory explains it. This is the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I dont like using the word faith because it implies and emotional investment and the desire for the thing to be true. I dont care if its true i care if it works as a tool in understanding biology. If you disproved it id be the first to jump onto the next theory. Faith implies dogma and stubbornness and a desire to stay the same. Its nothing like that at all.

People who reject evolution are NOT at the front of some amazing argument. They are not debating the theory. They are debating the original data point. The fact that it happened at all. Which to be honest is so set in stone that its silly to do so. They are far behind the times and making zero useful contribution at all.

Another "Science is just another religion" thing...not too original.

Now, to be fair, a lot of people are dogmatic about their science, or at least some peripheral elements of it. The difference is what people do when conflicting evidence comes up.

For example, until relatively recently it was believed that anaemia in women was generally caused by menstruation. This was held, not by science, but by a belief that men and women just worked differently, and that weird lady business had to be involved. You could compare that to a faith based believed.

Then it was discovered that the cause is generally the same for women as it is for men, and the old view was abandoned. That's science at work.

What, what, what?

There are so many things wrong in just that first post, so let me get to it.

HunterTheGypsyBard:
First of all, many people are bound believing faith means faith in a greater power IE a god, not in this school of thought.

But there are people who believe in both God and evolution, so its wrong to say a person can't do it.

Darwinism

This isn't a real thing. Nobody sits around jerking themselves off to the image of a man who has been dead for 120 years drawing pictures of birds.

is centered around faith in the theory of evolution,

Not faith, but evidence. Big difference.

that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Yeah, and we know that process happens. I can cite scientific papers, if you wish. Better yet, did you know that many of the basic principles of capitalism are the same as natural selection?

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin,

No, the term "Darwinism" stems from idiots who think belief in evolution is somehow an ungodly cult.

who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

No, he didn't.

Thoughts?

You should stop listening to Kent Hovind.

Glasgow:
Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Only if you think that the person basically worships Karl Marx, and thinks that his proposed ideas are absolutely perfect.

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

Please don't say "we have faith" because some people don't know what that means when you say it. To say it requires faith to believe in evolution is like saying it requires faith to go outside, jump, and not worry that you'll float out into space. It devalues the word "faith" to call trust in the theory of gravity "faith". Faith implies that there's a realistic level of improbability. Our entire history of modern genetics support the theory of evolution - there's not much room for improbability.

HunterTheGypsyBard:

Darwinism is centered around faith in the theory of evolution, that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

Thoughts?

Oh hello there!

Well, for starters I think we need to establish a bit of a baseline.

First off, are you a Newtonist? I must admit I'm more of an Einsteinist, but certainly we can both agree on being a-Lamarkist.

/sarcasm

See, if there is such a thing as Darwinist, then we must also categorize people based on their thoughts on gravity, electromagnetism, the existence of germs or wheter they believe Earth is flat.

This is because evolution is a Theory. Note the capitalization. That means it's a theory in the scientific sense, belonging in the same category as the Germ Theory Of Disease, The Theory of Electromagnetism, and the Theory Of Gravity.

Being a scientific theory, it neither requires nor promotes faith in anything. Well, except having faith in the overall existance of the universe and that you're not plugged into a Matrix, but to function at all everyone needs to do that assumption anyways so...

And calling someone a Darwinist shows that you do not understand what a Theory is, how science operates, what the relation between scientific hypothesis, facts, laws and theories are, nor what evolution actually is. This is just as silly as saying someone is a Maxwellist, because they think electricity works. Or calling nuclear power plant operators Marie Curiesists, because they "have faith" in radioactivity.

I'm am talking of faith in the sense of "belief based on conviction as opposed to proof or evidence".

Though it would be true to say that I have 'faith' in the Theory of Evolution sense that I 'trust' the Theory Of Evolution to hold true. Same as I have 'faith' in gravity, or my doctor being able to cure a simple infection, or my car starting in the morning. I trust these things, because I have evidence that that's how things work and as such I have reasonable expectations of the future based on what has happened in the past.

But in this connotation it's a poor word to use, 'faith', because people easily but falsely interchange the two meanings for the word in their heads when it suits them: "trust", suddenly becomes "belief based on conviction rather than evidence".

I 'trust' the Theory of Evolution, of Gravity, of Germ Theory Of Disease and so forth, precisely because I have evidence. Hell, I wouldn't trust the Special Theory Of Relativity unless I had evidence; the ideas regarding speed of light Einstein came up with are just too damn counterintuitive. They make little sense and my head hurts when I start to do math relating to them. But I have no choice but to accept E=mc^2 as valid, because there is evidence. It functions. Just the same as the modern Theory Of Evolution. Just the same as Electromagnetism.

image

MarsAtlas:
What, what, what?

There are so many things wrong in just that first post, so let me get to it.

HunterTheGypsyBard:
First of all, many people are bound believing faith means faith in a greater power IE a god, not in this school of thought.

But there are people who believe in both God and evolution, so its wrong to say a person can't do it.

Darwinism

This isn't a real thing. Nobody sits around jerking themselves off to the image of a man who has been dead for 120 years drawing pictures of birds.

is centered around faith in the theory of evolution,

Not faith, but evidence. Big difference.

that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Yeah, and we know that process happens. I can cite scientific papers, if you wish. Better yet, did you know that many of the basic principles of capitalism are the same as natural selection?

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin,

No, the term "Darwinism" stems from idiots who think belief in evolution is somehow an ungodly cult. And no, he did not

who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

No, he didn't.

Thoughts?

You should stop listening to Kent Hovind.

Glasgow:
Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Only if you think that the person basically worships Karl Marx, and thinks that his proposed ideas are absolutely perfect.

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

Please don't say "we have faith" because some people don't know what that means when you say it. To say it requires faith to believe in evolution is like saying it requires faith to go outside, jump, and not worry that you'll float out into space. It devalues the word "faith" to call trust in the theory of gravity "faith". Faith implies that there's a realistic level of improbability. Our entire history of modern genetics support the theory of evolution - there's not much room for improbability.

About Marx... we have those. They're called Classical Marxists.

Anyway, I do understand the issue when calling someone who acknowledges and accepts the theory of evolution a 'Darwinist'. It implies that the person listens only to what the man said, but the field had gone through much development in the years between his work and today.

Concerning the issue of faith - I don't understand why it somehow devalues faith in god. I don't see it that way. I believe in him because of the world I live in and because of the things that I was taught. Believing in him is not some heroic feat, of which 'faith' is a grand and daring venture into the unknown.

BiscuitTrouser:

Glasgow:

Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

Its true, but i would call the falling pencil the "Fact" of gravity. Gravity happens. Thats a fact. WHY gravity happens and an explanation of HOW gravity happens is the theory. The fact is the known phenomenon, a data point as you said. This is the pencil falling. This is species becoming other species. Fossils show that species turn into different species. Data point. WHY do they do this?

The theory explains it. This is the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I dont like using the word faith because it implies and emotional investment and the desire for the thing to be true. I dont care if its true i care if it works as a tool in understanding biology. If you disproved it id be the first to jump onto the next theory. Faith implies dogma and stubbornness and a desire to stay the same. Its nothing like that at all.

People who reject evolution are NOT at the front of some amazing argument. They are not debating the theory. They are debating the original data point. The fact that it happened at all. Which to be honest is so set in stone that its silly to do so. They are far behind the times and making zero useful contribution at all.

You've said it better. It is a known phenomenon but we also know what are the limits of gravity (other forces come into play and can push our expectations concerning gravity aside). The theory makes sense of the data, otherwise we wouldn't have known the bigger picture.

I don't see faith this way. I have faith that my football (soccer, you american word-stealers) team would win the next cup. I like my team and I support it.

The theory of evolution is a tool in biology but it could just be replaced or expanded in the future if a proper replacement is found. Some people who reject evolution are at the front of some amazing argument. Not everyone is forced to conform and work under the same consensus, and some scientists work to find other answers that evolution can't supply. Perhaps their findings will be incorporated into the theory, thus changing it, or perhaps it will spun a new theory altogether. Then again, you could be thinking of the catholic refusal for such, and I would say that it is merely a matter of time and luck. Our Pope is about to abdicate soon, and we could come into a quite liberal pope. *shudders*
Liberals.

Glasgow:
Concerning the issue of faith - I don't understand why it somehow devalues faith in god. I don't see it that way. I believe in him because of the world I live in and because of the things that I was taught. Believing in him is not some heroic feat, of which 'faith' is a grand and daring venture into the unknown.

It devalues the meaning of the word and the strength of one's convictions. You believe, good for you. Can you provide any undisputable facts to support that belief? The answer is no, or else everybody would believe in God. You may have something that is enough for you to believe, but whatever it is, it isn't a scientific fact. In the way that it devalues a person's religious convictions, let me ask this: does anybody take pride in knowing that fire is extremely hot? Does anybody take pride in knowing that if they jump that they'll fall back to earth? No, its a fact. Some people recognize that God isn't a scientific fact, and take pride in thier faith. Regardless about how anybody feels about that, it certainly cheapens their faith to compare it along the likes of a scientific fact.

MarsAtlas:

Glasgow:
Concerning the issue of faith - I don't understand why it somehow devalues faith in god. I don't see it that way. I believe in him because of the world I live in and because of the things that I was taught. Believing in him is not some heroic feat, of which 'faith' is a grand and daring venture into the unknown.

It devalues the meaning of the word and the strength of one's convictions. You believe, good for you. Can you provide any undisputable facts to support that belief? The answer is no, or else everybody would believe in God. You may have something that is enough for you to believe, but whatever it is, it isn't a scientific fact. In the way that it devalues a person's religious convictions, let me ask this: does anybody take pride in knowing that fire is extremely hot? Does anybody take pride in knowing that if they jump that they'll fall back to earth? No, its a fact. Some people recognize that God isn't a scientific fact, and take pride in thier faith. Regardless about how anybody feels about that, it certainly cheapens their faith to compare it along the likes of a scientific fact.

I only know how I feel. If you think that this makes some people who believe in god feel that this comparison cheapens their faith then I should stop, but in all honesty I don't see it that way.

Glasgow:

You've said it better. It is a known phenomenon but we also know what are the limits of gravity (other forces come into play and can push our expectations concerning gravity aside). The theory makes sense of the data, otherwise we wouldn't have known the bigger picture.

I don't see faith this way. I have faith that my football (soccer, you american word-stealers) team would win the next cup. I like my team and I support it.

The theory of evolution is a tool in biology but it could just be replaced or expanded in the future if a proper replacement is found. Some people who reject evolution are at the front of some amazing argument. Not everyone is forced to conform and work under the same consensus, and some scientists work to find other answers that evolution can't supply. Perhaps their findings will be incorporated into the theory, thus changing it, or perhaps it will spun a new theory altogether. Then again, you could be thinking of the catholic refusal for such, and I would say that it is merely a matter of time and luck. Our Pope is about to abdicate soon, and we could come into a quite liberal pope. *shudders*
Liberals.

You just admitted you DO see faith this way. If your team doesnt win, or fails MISERABLY you will feel negative emotions yes? Your faith is an emotional investment. You said you "Like" your team and support it. An emotional connection. I dont "Like" evolution. Its a tool. It has ZERO emotional connection to me. Thus i dont use the word faith like you do. There isnt any "Liking" or "Hoping". I dont give a crap if a thousand rabid researchers rip it to shreds. You WOULD care if your team was trashed again and again by blind 12 year olds. Faith is an emotional thing.

Some people who reject parts of the THEORY of evolution might be at the forefront. Evolution is a thing where the issues are in the specifics. How when and WHY did this species turn into this species. Not "Is the world 4000 years old". Thats useless. We are WAY past this point. I see where you are coming from and youre right but challenging a theory can happen in a productive or a non productive way. "I think this part of the theory is incorrect in explaining X and i think the theory can be adapted like so" is useful.

"I think theory X is totally wrong in ALL ways, theory Y is correct and is UTTERLY different in ALL respects as well as far less scientifically based" isnt useful.

Eh, MORE liberal than the pope is still fairly in the realm of conservative. Hell if youre a Brit like me and you are conservative youre probably on the same political place as me since my hatred for our lib dems burns with the fury of a thousand suns. Im a British conservative. But in the context of the US of A im as liberal as can be.

I believe we had this "Science requires faith" topic in off-topic a little bit ago, which is correct, if you stretch the meaning of faith to basically encompass every waking moment of life and every possibility therein no matter how remote or ridiculous, thus making it a meaningless distinction.

SakSak:
First off, are you a Newtonist? I must admit I'm more of an Einsteinist, but certainly we can both agree on being a-Lamarkist.

I'm more of an anti-Aztecist you know. I have real faith in that the sun will rise every morning without a need for human sacrifice first.

Glasgow:

LoFr3Eq:
Hardly anyone is a "Darwinist", trying to accuse someone of being one just makes you look silly.

And one does not have faith in evolution, it is a fact, verifiably so.

Is it silly to call someone a Marxist then?

Evolution isn't fact. Evolution is a theory. Facts are data.

Gravity is also a theory, for example. A theory is a very important tool in science as it allows us to predict outcomes of certain events based on the theory itself. Facts only serves to note the happening at a certain moment or length of time. They can't predict jack. A fact is that my pencil just dropped a second ago from my desk. The theory of gravity dictates that when my pencil was about to fall from a height of 1 meter, it's potential height energy was... blah blah blah... which would have the pencil drop at a speed of... and then the time it takes for the pencil to hit the ground is...

So yes, you have faith in the theory of Evolution because it's a pretty good one and we haven't had a lot of competent competition for the past few decades.

Gravity isn't a theory. It is a description of a phenomena. As you say, it describes how your pencil moves when you drop it. For it to be a theory it would have to explain how that phenomenon came about. There are several competing theories of gravity, many of which are still unfalsifiable. And indeed the description itself is still incomplete, which is why we have dark matter and dark energy, which are place holder terms to describe phenomenon that doesn't follow our current description of gravity.

Gravity is just a name we have given to the fact that things falls when you drop them.

No. NO.. WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN. Claiming Science requires 'faith' is an equivalence fallacy when used in comparison with 'faith' in a higher power. END OF THREAD.

Thank you.

ClockworkPenguin:

Gravity isn't a theory. It is a description of a phenomena.

Gravity is just a name we have given to the fact that things falls when you drop them.

Ummm... you do realize that pretty much is the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a comprehensive, well supported framework that explains a body of facts and laws relating to specifically defined phenomena.

Theory Of Gravity is the explanation for, among other things, why things fall.

Since there appears to be a bit of confusion here among other users as well

Scientific parlay - Common speech

Hypothesis - Educated guess that can be tested and falsified. Example: "Objects with different mass will fall at the same rate, provided outside factors such as air resistance are eliminated"
Fact - Confirmed observation of an event or phenomena. Example: "A pen falls if I let go"
Law - A generalized form of a group of observations, often expressed as mathematical formulas. Example: "Newtons' Second Law Of Motion, F=ma"
Theory - A comprehensive, well-supported explanatory framework for a group of scientific Hypothesis, Facts and Laws relating to a specific phenomena. Example: "Mass causes space-time to bend, creating gravitational 'dips' and 'wells' that we perceive as an invisible force that results in Newtonian stellar mechanics. Objects are travelling in straight lines but gravity of the sun bends space near it, so that the straight line for a planet is in fact an elliptical orbit."

In this sense, both gravity and evolution are Hypothesis, Facts, Laws and Theories all at the same time. Or rather, it is false to state that there exists no Facts regarding evolution, or that gravity isn't a Theory.

thaluikhain:
Another "Science is just another religion" thing...not too original.

Ahhh yuss. It's been too long since we had one of these.

Take it away, Tim.

OP, are you a Biblical Literalist or something? You are aware that plenty of religious people accept the theory of evolution? You're also aware that the theory is much better supported these days than in the days of Darwin? He didn't know about DNA yet, for instance. Really, it's basic biology. That it's still controversial in some circles of some places of the world is quite sad.

SakSak:

ClockworkPenguin:

Gravity isn't a theory. It is a description of a phenomena.

Gravity is just a name we have given to the fact that things falls when you drop them.

Ummm... you do realize that pretty much is the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a comprehensive, well supported framework that explains a body of facts and laws relating to specifically defined phenomena.

Theory Of Gravity is the explanation for, among other things, why things fall.

Since there appears to be a bit of confusion here among other users as well

Scientific parlay - Common speech

Hypothesis - Educated guess that can be tested and falsified. Example: "Objects with same mass will fall at the same rate, provided outside factors such as air resistance are eliminated"
Fact - Confirmed observation of an event or phenomena. Example: "A pen falls if I let go"
Law - A generalized form of a group of observations, often expressed as mathematical formulas. Example: "Newtons' Second Of Of Motion, F=ma"
Theory - A comprehensive, well-supported explanatory framework for a group of scientific Hypothesis, Facts and Laws relating to a specific phenomena. Example: "Mass causes space-time to bend, creating gravitational 'dips' and 'wells' that we perceive as an invisible force that results in Newtonian stellar mechanics. Objects are travelling in straight lines but gravity of the sun bends space around, so that the straight line for a planet is in fact an elliptical orbit."

In this sense, both gravity and evolution are Hypothesis, Facts, Laws and Theories all at the same time. Or rather, it is false to state that there exists no Facts regarding evolution, or that gravity isn't a Theory.

True, I realised after I wrote it that what I was writing could also be applied to many other things I considered 'theories'. But when people say 'the theory of evolution is as valid as the theory of gravity', they tend not to be referring to the concept that mass bends space-time; which is a Theory, but to the fact that masses accelerate towards each other; which is not, its just an observation.

In so far as the laws of gravity we currently have do not describe all observed gravitational phenomena, it is arguable that there isn't a single 'theory of gravity' at all. There are several competing theories such as String theory and M-theory, which explain it, mathematically at least, but they are currently unfalsifiable ans so unsupported by evidence as yet.

I'd compare it to the study of gases.
Things like the law of ideal gases PV=nRT, describe how gases behave. To my mind, the 'theory' bit is the kinetic model of gases, which explains why gases follow this behaviour.

With gravity, we have the mathematical descriptions of gravitational effects and then the 'theory' bit would be General Relativity, which states that matter bends space-time.

Sorry, I've just managed to talk myself into agreeing with you in an attempt to refute you. You win good sir. I was going to delete my rambling defence after I came to this conclusion, but I reckon its more honest to leave it up.

ClockworkPenguin:

Sorry, I've just managed to talk myself into agreeing with you in an attempt to refute you. You win good sir. I was going to delete my rambling defence after I came to this conclusion, but I reckon its more honest to leave it up.

Hat's off to you, for exceptional honesty and intellectual integrity over the internet where both are regretfully rare.

darwinism is the most ridiculuous theory of ever made i believe

because there are countless scientific proofs of superior power

while nothing randomly happens believeing in everything happened randomly is extremely ridiciluous

God Almighty existince is more visible than sun light

MonsterMMORPG:
darwinism is the most ridiculuous theory of ever made i believe

because there are countless scientific proofs of superior power

while nothing randomly happens believeing in everything happened randomly is extremely ridiciluous

God Almighty existince is more visible than sun light

First of all, define "random" ? There are determinists who know evolution is a scientific fact. If anything darwinism is all but random considering the whole "survival of the fittest and blabla" concept involves patterns and causality.

And please provide scientific proof of a higher power. And no a random pastor blabbering nonesense =/= scientific proof.

generals3:

MonsterMMORPG:
darwinism is the most ridiculuous theory of ever made i believe

because there are countless scientific proofs of superior power

while nothing randomly happens believeing in everything happened randomly is extremely ridiciluous

God Almighty existince is more visible than sun light

First of all, define "random" ? There are determinists who know evolution is a scientific fact. If anything darwinism is all but random considering the whole "survival of the fittest and blabla" concept involves patterns and causality.

And please provide scientific proof of a higher power. And no a random pastor blabbering nonesense =/= scientific proof.

can you tell who coded evolution rules - yes there are rules
and how on earth matter become existince and
how on earth matter become living organizm
and why that first living organizm did not stay that way while could live his life in happiness
or why do we still have single cell organizms
and goes forever

generals3:

MonsterMMORPG:
darwinism is the most ridiculuous theory of ever made i believe

because there are countless scientific proofs of superior power

while nothing randomly happens believeing in everything happened randomly is extremely ridiciluous

God Almighty existince is more visible than sun light

First of all, define "random" ? There are determinists who know evolution is a scientific fact. If anything darwinism is all but random considering the whole "survival of the fittest and blabla" concept involves patterns and causality.

You know i was refreshing this page waiting for the brave brave man willing to stand up and respond to this. You have my gratitude sir. Good luck. The poster in question is from turkey, the country with one of the highest % of creationists in the world. It does not look good for you im afraid.

Talking to creationists is hard as hell. Its easy to explain to a relatively blank slate on a topic, like someone who knows NOTHING about evolution. Someone who believes misconceptions like "WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!" is really hard to talk to, for you must first DISprove all their misconceptions before you can PROVE what is actually true. Its like attempting to teach addition to someone who is certain 2 and 3 are swapped in the order of numbers. Its just such a fundamental misunderstanding that it warps all teaching from that point forward.

HunterTheGypsyBard:
First of all, many people are bound believing faith means faith in a greater power IE a god, not in this school of thought.

Darwinism is centered around faith in the theory of evolution, that the process known as natural selection affects species.

Darwinism in its name stems from the scientist Charles Darwin, who proposed the theory of Natural Selection.

Thoughts?

NO.

WRONG.

BAD.

You do not understand how science works, not evolution (nobody but creationists really call it "Darwinism" anymore), not anything.

We do not accept science on faith.

Let me explain to you how the scientific methods works.

A scientist sees a problem in our current understanding of the universe. Let's use Darwin for example. He went to the galapagos islands, which is well known for it's giant turtles. The turtles of each island were still the same species, but each island had certain patterns and shapes of the shells. He also noticed that the birds had different beaks depending what food sources they could eat. This seemed to contradict the widely accepted view at the time that only a two of a species had survived a Great Flood and God had created all life on Earth in a day.

So, Darwin (over many years and with the help of others) developed a hypothesis to explain the diversity of life on Earth. He created the idea of natural selection, where life changes to meet the challenges of their surroundings.

This is the point where science and religion split off.

Darwin published his ideas, explaining his reasonings, the evidence he has gathered, and (maybe) potential predictions to experimentations.

Over the last hundred years, scientists the world over have take Darwin's hypothesis and tested it. Tested it again, and again, and again. Taking new evidence, such as DNA and a far improved fossil records, and kept testing it. We have created new life forms in labs, we have found "ring" species (species that sub-species in areas can cross breed with other nearby subspecies, but cannot mate with other subspecies from far away). Loads and loads of evidence has been complied, many changes to Darwin's original theory have been made.

Darwin isn't some holy prophet, who's texts can never be challenged nor can they be altered. Every single piece of evidence, every new development, every ounce of scientific knowledge about life on this planet we have gathered in the last century points to evolution being correct.

Yet, it only has achieved the status of "theory?" Why? Because that is the highest level in science you could ever achieve. You cannot "prove" anything in science, with the sole exception of mathematics, all scientific knowledge is just "stuff that hasn't been proven WRONG yet." Everything, from gravity, to light, to the motion of the Earth around the sun, is all under "theory."

Not a billion tests can prove something as simple as gravity exists, yet it only takes a single, well done experiment, that is able to be repeated with the same result, to disprove the theory of gravity.

It has happened before, by a man named Einstein.

MonsterMMORPG:
darwinism is the most ridiculuous theory of ever made i believe

because there are countless scientific proofs of superior power

while nothing randomly happens believeing in everything happened randomly is extremely ridiciluous

God Almighty existince is more visible than sun light

Well first of all, you should know that in this particular context the use of the words "everything" and "randomly" tend to indicate a rather poor knowledge of the topic. Towards the former, Evolutionary Theory (or 'darwinism' as you call it) doesn't address 'everything'. It's a Scientific Theory belonging to the field of biology and concerns the manner in which life changes and diversifies over the course of generations. It's also worth noting here that - despite frequent creationist claims to the contrary - Evolutionary Theory also doesn't encompass the origin of life. That's a separate topic called Abiogenesis. The claim of randomness also hits a few roadblocks, not the least of which is the fact that on the whole it's not exactly a random process. Mutation is semi-random in nature, and that is a part of Evolutionary Theory, but it is not the whole of it and accounts mainly for the creation of heritible variation with the theory. The driving force behind evolution which creates distinct populations is natural selection, the way a trait naturally either benefits or harms an organism within its environment, which in turn culls a population in a way where favored traits become more prevalent and harmful traits become less so. It's actually quite a simple and intuitive concept, all things considered. I mean, when you get down to brass tacks, the basics of the idea boiled down to this when Origin of the Species was first published:

1) Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
2) Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
3) Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
4) A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
5) Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
6) Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
7) Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
8) This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

Before we go any further, I just want to be sure and ask...which of those points is 'ridiculous'? Now, science has built on that over the years - further defining the mechanisms behind the process (with Genetics as a whole deserving special mention in this regard) - but the basic principle remains the same. And the strength of the theory is such that it effectively ties the fields within biology together, and the principles were well established before evolutionary theory was ever formed, due to humanity's extensive use of animal breeding and horticulture to produce organisms with greater benefit to us.

MonsterMMORPG:

can you tell who coded evolution rules - yes there are rules
and how on earth matter become existince and
how on earth matter become living organizm
and why that first living organizm did not stay that way while could live his life in happiness
or why do we still have single cell organizms
and goes forever

Science doesn't give answers to all the questions and it doesn't have the pretense to claim so. Recognizing its admitted weaknesses doesn't disprove anything. And the second question can easily be countered with "can you tell me how on earth a higher power came to existence?". And the rules are the rules because it is so. That goes for all physical laws.

Why that living organism didn't stay that way? Ah but that's because matter has a nasty tendency to interact with its surroundings and change just like bacteria become resistant, viruses mutate, etc. You could also ask "why does this matter dissolve in this acid while it could just stay what it is?" that's just nature and its laws.

Why we have single cell organisms? Well, simple: things interact with their environment, the environment is a function with countless variables, as such it is very normal things change differently or even barely/don't change.

what ever you say
there are extreme flaws in the theory that you can never answer

also i have countless scientific proofs that proves God existince
and if you are so blind to see these proofs nothing can be done :(

even just looking to human biology is enough to understand there must be some superior power

MonsterMMORPG:

can you tell who coded evolution rules - yes there are rules
and how on earth matter become existince and
how on earth matter become living organizm
and why that first living organizm did not stay that way while could live his life in happiness
or why do we still have single cell organizms
and goes forever

I can answer this.

1. What rules? You mean the laws of physics? Im not sure. I think they have always been and will be.

2. Also not sure. The big bang is the first event we are sure about, before that we have a few ideas but its hard to reason. It might be that the singularity that created our universe has always been and will be.

3. Matter becomes living due to chance. A fairly small chance actually, YOU can create amino acids and protiens AND DNA in a lab from non living matter. Its been done before. The experiment is called the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

It was proved, undoubtably that with heat, water and the gases that were once in earths atmosphere you can create DNA, proteins and amino acids.

The first living organism AND the reason we still have single celled organisms is the same reason we still have Europeans even though Europeans moved to form America. Animals change and adapt when there are so many that they have to compete. Single celled organisms are still around because their home is still there. The reason SOME changed is because their home became crowded, and once crowded they needed to fill NEW homes and so they changed by mutation to be able to fit new homes. The old home was still good, for only for the ones that mutated to become REALLY good at filling that old home. When there are WAY too many organisms in one place TWO kinds of mutation work very well. Those that make you really good at living in your old home. For example staying single celled but better at surviving. And those that make you able to move away to a new place. For example becoming larger and multi celled.

Your list is WELL understood.

I will answer EVERY flaw.

I am a biomedical student. I will one day become a Doctor. I study human biology. I dont think there is a creator.

Perhaps it would help us be less blind if you NAMED these scientific proofs. And dont say "Because this thing is REALLLLLY complicated".

MonsterMMORPG:
what ever you say
there are extreme flaws in the theory that you can never answer

also i have countless scientific proofs that proves God existince
and if you are so blind to see these proofs nothing can be done :(

even just looking to human biology is enough to understand there must be some superior power

Give me your scientific evidence than. Until now i've seen none. Asking philosophical questions like "why are the laws of physics what they are" isn't evidence that's just a question. And the same goes for your lack of comprehension of nature. It is not because something appears complex that it is evidence of a superior power. That's just you being overwhelmed.

MonsterMMORPG:
what ever you say
there are extreme flaws in the theory that you can never answer

also i have countless scientific proofs that proves God existince
and if you are so blind to see these proofs nothing can be done :(

even just looking to human biology is enough to understand there must be some superior power

Uh, uh, I want to get in on this too!
What? I'm snowed in here and it's between uni semesters. I'm totally under-biologied.

If you're so certain then please present these flaws because apparently nobody who actually studied in the field of Biology is educated enough to realize it.

BiscuitTrouser:

MonsterMMORPG:

can you tell who coded evolution rules - yes there are rules
and how on earth matter become existince and
how on earth matter become living organizm
and why that first living organizm did not stay that way while could live his life in happiness
or why do we still have single cell organizms
and goes forever

I can answer this.

1. What rules? You mean the laws of physics? Im not sure. I think they have always been and will be.

2. Also not sure. The big bang is the first event we are sure about, before that we have a few ideas but its hard to reason. It might be that the singularity that created our universe has always been and will be.

3. Matter becomes living due to chance. A fairly small chance actually, YOU can create amino acids and protiens AND DNA in a lab from non living matter. Its been done before. The experiment is called the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

It was proved, undoubtably that with heat, water and the gases that were once in earths atmosphere you can create DNA, proteins and amino acids.

The first living organism AND the reason we still have single celled organisms is the same reason we still have Europeans even though Europeans moved to form America. Animals change and adapt when there are so many that they have to compete. Single celled organisms are still around because their home is still there. The reason SOME changed is because their home became crowded, and once crowded they needed to fill NEW homes and so they changed by mutation to be able to fit new homes. The old home was still good, for only for the ones that mutated to become REALLY good at filling that old home. When there are WAY too many organisms in one place TWO kinds of mutation work very well. Those that make you really good at living in your old home. For example staying single celled but better at surviving. And those that make you able to move away to a new place. For example becoming larger and multi celled.

Your list is WELL understood.

I will answer EVERY flaw.

I am a biomedical student. I will one day become a Doctor. I study human biology. I dont think there is a creator.

i know my answer pointless to you but still i will

1 - yes there are rules since creation :) and the creator created those rules
2 - yes big bang done by the Creator and there are proofs in the Quran that indicates that : http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html
3 - wow just wow :) matter becomes living thing with DNA that is far more supeior than current technology :)

Quaxar:

MonsterMMORPG:
what ever you say
there are extreme flaws in the theory that you can never answer

also i have countless scientific proofs that proves God existince
and if you are so blind to see these proofs nothing can be done :(

even just looking to human biology is enough to understand there must be some superior power

Uh, uh, I want to get in on this too!
What? I'm snowed in here and it's between uni semesters. I'm totally under-biologied.

If you're so certain then please present these flaws because apparently nobody who actually studied in the field of Biology is educated enough to realize it.

all of the science itself

the created rules, things everything

they are far more superior than our technology

science is nothing but understand the laws that is already created

we just discover them

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked